Murad, M. Hassan

Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a highly transmissible virus that can infect healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients in healthcare settings. Specific care activities, in particular, aerosol-generating procedures, may have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 has created significant challenges in healthcare facilities, particularly with severe shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) used to protect HCP. Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care are needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators. Objective Our objective was to develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support HCP in their decisions about infection prevention when caring for patients with suspected or known coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included front-line clinicians, infectious diseases specialists, experts in infection control, and guideline methodologists with representation from the disciplines of preventive care, public health, medical microbiology, pediatrics, critical care medicine, and gastroenterology. The process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then, a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Results The IDSA guideline panel agreed on 8 recommendations and provided narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations. Conclusions Using a combination of direct and indirect evidence, the panel was able to provide recommendations for 8 specific questions on the use of PPE for HCP who provide care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. Significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 remain, and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence.

AbstractBackgroundDescriptions of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have focused on the nonpregnant adult population. This study aims to describe the clinical characteristics and perinatal outcomes of COVID-19 in pregnancy.MethodsWe searched databases from December 2019 to 30 April 2020. Eligible studies reported clinical characteristics, radiological findings, and/or laboratory testing of pregnant women during infection. Data were pooled across studies using a random-effects model.ResultsTwenty-four studies (136 women) were included. The most common symptoms were fever (62.9%) and cough (36.8%). Laboratory findings included elevated C-reactive protein (57%) and lymphocytopenia (50%). Ground-glass opacity was the most common radiological finding (81.7%). Preterm birth rate was 37.7% and cesarean delivery rate was 76%. There was 1 maternal death. There were 2 fetal COVID-19 cases.ConclusionsThe clinical picture in pregnant women with COVID-19 did not differ from the nonpregnant population; however, the rate of preterm birth and cesarean delivery are considerably higher than international averages.

Abstract IDSA Disclaimer As of the time of this publication, updates have been made to IDSA’s Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19. For the most updated version of these guidelines, please go to https://www.idsociety.org/covid19guidelines. Background Accurate molecular diagnostic tests are necessary for confirming a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Direct detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acids in respiratory tract specimens informs patient, healthcare institution, and public health–level decision-making. The number of available SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection tests is rapidly increasing, as is the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. Thus, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recognized a significant need for frequently updated systematic reviews of the literature to inform evidence-based best practice guidance. Objective The IDSA’s goal was to develop an evidence-based diagnostic guidelines to assist clinicians, clinical laboratorians, patients, and policy makers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests. In addition, the society provides a conceptual framework for understanding molecular diagnostic test performance, discusses the nuance of test result interpretation in a variety of practice settings, and highlights important unmet research needs in the COVID-19 diagnostic testing arena. Methods IDSA convened a multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review to identify and prioritize clinical questions and outcomes related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. Results The panel agreed on 15 diagnostic recommendations. Conclusions Universal access to accurate SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing is critical for patient care, hospital infection prevention, and the public response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Information on the clinical performance of available tests is rapidly emerging, but the quality of evidence of the current literature is considered low to very low. Recognizing these limitations, the IDSA panel weighed available diagnostic evidence and recommends nucleic acid testing for all symptomatic individuals suspected of having COVID-19. In addition, testing is recommended for asymptomatic individuals who have had a known or suspected contact with a COVID-19 case. Testing asymptomatic individuals without known exposure is suggested when the results will impact isolation/quarantine/personal protective equipment usage decisions, dictate eligibility for surgery, or inform administration of immunosuppressive therapy. Ultimately, prioritization of testing will depend on institution-specific resources and the needs of different patient populations.

AbstractSevere cases of COVID-19 infection, often leading to death, have been associated with variants of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Cell therapy with mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) is a potential treatment for COVID-19 ARDS based on preclinical and clinical studies supporting the concept that MSCs modulate the inflammatory and remodeling processes and restore alveolo-capillary barriers. The authors performed a systematic literature review and random-effects meta-analysis to determine the potential value of MSC therapy for treating COVID-19-infected patients with ARDS. Publications in all languages from 1990 to March 31, 2020 were reviewed, yielding 2691 studies, of which nine were included. MSCs were intravenously or intratracheally administered in 117 participants, who were followed for 14 days to 5 years. All MSCs were allogeneic from bone marrow, umbilical cord, menstrual blood, adipose tissue, or unreported sources. Combined mortality showed a favorable trend but did not reach statistical significance. No related serious adverse events were reported and mild adverse events resolved spontaneously. A trend was found of improved radiographic findings, pulmonary function (lung compliance, tidal volumes, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, alveolo-capillary injury), and inflammatory biomarker levels. No comparisons were made between MSCs of different sources.Significance statement The potential benefits of mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) therapy for patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome support the rapid commencement of clinical trials, as well as the compassionate use of MSCs that already have documented safety profiles from FDA-approved studies.

Objective Bioprosthetic valves are being used with increased frequency for valve replacement, with controversy regarding risk:benefit ratio compared with mechanical valves in younger patients. However, prior studies have been too small to provide comparative estimates of less common but serious adverse events such as infective endocarditis. We aimed to compare the incidence of infective endocarditis between bioprosthetic valves and mechanical valves. Methods We searched PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science from inception to April 2018 for studies comparing left-sided aortic and mitral bioprosthetic to mechanical valves for randomised trials or observational studies with propensity matching. We used random-effects model for our meta-analysis. Our primary outcome of interest was the rate of infective endocarditis at follow-up. Results 13 comparison groups with 43 941 patients were included. Mean age was 59±7 years with a mean follow-up of 10.4±5.0 years. Patients with bioprosthetic valves had a higher risk of infective endocarditis compared with patients receiving mechanical valves (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.88, p<0.001) with an absolute risk reduction of 9 per 1000 (95% CI 6 to 14). Heterogeneity within the included studies was low (I2=0%). Exclusion of the study with maximum weight did not change the results of the analysis (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.17, p=0.006). A meta-regression of follow-up time on incidence of infective endocarditis was not statistically significant (p=0.788) indicating difference in follow-up times did not alter the pooled risk of infective endocarditis. Conclusions Bioprosthetic valves may be associated with a higher risk of infective endocarditis. These data should help guide the discussion when deciding between bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in individual patients.

SummaryBackgroundWhen opioid‐induced constipation is treated with centrally acting opioid antagonists, there may be opioid withdrawal or aggravation of pain due to inhibition of μ‐opioid analgesia. This led to the development of peripherally acting μ‐opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs).AimTo evaluate the efficacy of available PAMORAs and other approved or experimental treatments for relieving constipation in patients with opioid‐induced constipation, based on a systematic review and meta‐analysis of published studies.MethodsA search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and EBM Reviews Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was completed in July 2019 for randomised trials compared to placebo. FDA approved doses or highest studied dose was evaluated. Efficacy was based on diverse endpoints, including continuous variables (the bowel function index, number of spontaneous bowel movements and stool consistency based on Bristol Stool Form Scale), or responder analysis (combination of >3 spontaneous bowel movements or complete spontaneous bowel movements plus 1 spontaneous bowel movement or complete spontaneous bowel movements, respectively, over baseline [so‐called FDA endpoints]). Adverse effects evaluated included central opioid withdrawal, serious adverse events, abdominal pain and diarrhoea.ResultsWe included 35 trials at low risk of bias enrolling 13 566 patients. All PAMORAs demonstrated efficacy on diverse patient response endpoints. There was greater efficacy with approved doses of the PAMORAs (methylnaltrexone, naloxegol and naldemidine), with lower efficacy or lower efficacy and greater adverse effects with combination oxycodone with naloxone, lubiprostone and linaclotide.ConclusionsTherapeutic response in opioid‐induced constipation is best achieved with the PAMORAs, methylnaltrexone, naloxegol and naldemidine, which are associated with low risk of serious adverse events.